Pavel,
The problem with a current approach to me is the possibility of forgetting
to enlist a table into a transaction, because it is not enforced.
Having the explicit argument for this purpose seems less error-prone to me.
пн, 29 нояб. 2021 г. в 15:13, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>:
> Taras, yes, yours is the actual syntax in main branch right now,
> I've skipped the tx argument in my code accidentally.
>
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 3:03 PM Taras Ledkov <tled...@gridgain.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi colleagues,
> >
> > 2Pavel:
> > > RecordView<Tuple> txView = view.withTransaction();
> > Can we use the syntax (see below) to attach the table / operation to the
> > started transaction?
> > RecordView<Tuple2> txPersonView =
> > person.recordView().withTransaction(txView.transaction());
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 1:34 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Alexei,
> > >
> > > I agree that runInTransaction is confusing and error-prone.
> > >
> > > But we already have view.withTransaction(), which seems to be the most
> > > boilerplate-free approach.
> > > The example above will look like this:
> > >
> > > public void testMixedPutGet() throws TransactionException {
> > > RecordView<Tuple> view = accounts.recordView();
> > >
> > > view.upsert(makeValue(1, BALANCE_1));
> > >
> > > RecordView<Tuple> txView = view.withTransaction();
> > >
> > > txView.getAsync(makeKey(1)).thenCompose(r ->
> > > txView.upsertAsync(makeValue(1, r.doubleValue("balance") + DELTA),
> > > tx)).thenCompose(txView.transaction().commitAsync()).join();
> > >
> > > assertEquals(BALANCE_1 + DELTA,
> > > view.get(makeKey(1)).doubleValue("balance"));
> > > }
> > >
> > > Is there any problem with this?
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 10:45 AM Alexei Scherbakov <
> > > alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Folks,
> > > >
> > > > Recently I've pushed transactions support phase 1 for Ignite 3, see
> > [1].
> > > > Feel free to give feedback.
> > > > Current implementation attempts to automatically enlist a table into
> > > > transaction if it's started using [2] or [3] by using thread local
> > > context,
> > > > similar to Ignite 2 approach, to reduce the amount of boilerplate
> code.
> > > > But it turns out such an approach still has unacceptable drawbacks
> > from a
> > > > user experience point of view.
> > > >
> > > > Consider the example [4]:
> > > >
> > > > public void testMixedPutGet() throws TransactionException {
> > > > accounts.recordView().upsert(makeValue(1, BALANCE_1));
> > > >
> > > > igniteTransactions.runInTransaction(tx -> {
> > > > var txAcc = accounts.recordView().withTransaction(tx);
> > > >
> > > > txAcc.getAsync(makeKey(1)).thenCompose(r ->
> > > > txAcc.upsertAsync(makeValue(1, r.doubleValue("balance") +
> > > DELTA))).join();
> > > > });
> > > >
> > > > assertEquals(BALANCE_1 + DELTA,
> > > > accounts.recordView().get(makeKey(1)).doubleValue("balance"));
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > Here we *have to* to manually enlist a table if it's used in async
> > chain
> > > > call, because the caller thread will be different and the chained
> > > operation
> > > > will be executed in separate tx.
> > > > This works similarly in Ignite 2 and is very confusing.
> > > >
> > > > To avoid this, I propose to add an explicit Transaction argument to
> > each
> > > > table API method. Null value means to start the implicit transaction
> > > > (autocommit mode). For example:
> > > >
> > > > /**
> > > > * Asynchronously inserts a record into the table if it doesn't
> > exist
> > > > or replaces the existed one.
> > > > *
> > > > * @param rec A record to insert into the table. The record
> cannot
> > be
> > > > {@code null}.
> > > > * @param tx The transaction or {@code null} to auto commit.
> > > > * @return Future representing pending completion of the
> operation.
> > > > */
> > > > @NotNull CompletableFuture<Void> upsertAsync(@NotNull R rec,
> > > @Nullable
> > > > Transaction tx);
> > > >
> > > > The example [4] turns to
> > > >
> > > > public void testMixedPutGet() throws TransactionException {
> > > > RecordView<Tuple> view = accounts.recordView();
> > > >
> > > > view.upsert(makeValue(1, BALANCE_1));
> > > >
> > > > igniteTransactions.runInTransaction(tx -> {
> > > > view.getAsync(makeKey(1), tx).thenCompose(r ->
> > > > view.upsertAsync(makeValue(1, r.doubleValue("balance") + DELTA),
> > > > tx)).join();
> > > > });
> > > >
> > > > assertEquals(BALANCE_1 + DELTA,
> > > > view.get(makeKey(1)).doubleValue("balance"));
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > Share your thoughts.
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15085
> > > > [2]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.tx.IgniteTransactions#runInTransaction(java.util.function.Consumer<org.apache.ignite.tx.Transaction>)
> > > > [3]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.tx.IgniteTransactions#runInTransaction(java.util.function.Function<org.apache.ignite.tx.Transaction,T>)
> > > > [4] org.apache.ignite.internal.table.TxAbstractTest#testMixedPutGet
> > > >
> > > > ср, 14 июл. 2021 г. в 14:12, Alexei Scherbakov <
> > > > alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > >
> > > > > Andrey,
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) "As a user, I'd expect runInTransaction(closure) will create Tx
> > for
> > > > me,
> > > > > commit Tx after a successful closure call, and rollback Tx in case
> of
> > > > > error."
> > > > > - I'm ok with this behavior, and will alter javadoc.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) "Transaction tx = beginTx()" - there is no such method "beginTx"
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > proposed API, and I'm not intending to add it.
> > > > > For the synchronous case I suggest to use "runInTransaction", which
> > > > > eliminates the need in AutoClosable.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 14 июл. 2021 г. в 13:21, Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com
> >:
> > > > >
> > > > >> > yes, it is stated in the javadoc in the PR.
> > > > >> Ah, I see.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ср, 14 июл. 2021 г. в 12:16, Alexei Scherbakov <
> > > > >> alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com
> > > > >> >:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Ivan,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > And what if I have already committed transaction? Is it safe
> > > rollback
> > > > >> > already committed transaction? Rollback will silently return and
> > do
> > > > >> > nothing? - yes, it is stated in the javadoc in the PR.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Andrey,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Then using "runInTransaction", lack of commit will cause a
> > > transaction
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > rollback automatically.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > There is no need for a "close" method, it just adds confusion.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > ср, 14 июл. 2021 г. в 11:37, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > >> andrey.mashen...@gmail.com
> > > > >> > >:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Agree with Ivan.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Method runInTransaction() should try to finish the transaction
> > if
> > > > the
> > > > >> > user
> > > > >> > > forgot to commit one.
> > > > >> > > I guess it might be a common mistake among new users.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Also, I suggest to extent all table projections for better UX.
> > > > >> > > Let's allow
> > > > >> > > table.kvView().withTx(tx)
> > > > >> > > to user may cache kvVew instance and do
> > > > >> > > kvView.withTx(tx)
> > > > >> > > rather than
> > > > >> > > table.withTx(tx).kvVew()
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 10:13 AM Ivan Daschinsky <
> > > > ivanda...@gmail.com
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > Alexey, and is there any analogue to close() of transaction?
> > > When
> > > > >> you
> > > > >> > > start
> > > > >> > > > transaction, you should somehow to close it, if you don't
> > catch
> > > > >> > exception
> > > > >> > > > or forget to commit.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > I suggest to add method closeAsync() to Transaction, so user
> > can
> > > > >> call
> > > > >> > it
> > > > >> > > in
> > > > >> > > > handle or whenComplete, i.e.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > So code will looks like
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > CacheApi cache = CacheApi.getCache("testCache");
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Transactions
> > > > >> > > > .beginTransaction()
> > > > >> > > > .thenCompose(tx -> {
> > > > >> > > > CacheApi txCache = cache.withTx(tx);
> > > > >> > > > CompletableFuture<Void> result =
> > txCache.getAsync("key")
> > > > >> > > > .thenCompose(val -> {
> > > > >> > > > if (val == "test") {
> > > > >> > > > return txCache.putAsync("key", "test1");
> > > > >> > > > }
> > > > >> > > > else
> > > > >> > > > return
> > > > CompletableFuture.completedFuture(null);
> > > > >> > > > })
> > > > >> > > > .thenCompose(v -> tx.commitAsync())
> > > > >> > > > .handle((v, ex) -> null);
> > > > >> > > > return result.thenCompose(v -> tx.closeAsync());
> > > > >> > > > });
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > I also suggests to add method something like this
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > static CompletableFuture<Void>
> inTxAsync(Function<Transaction,
> > > > >> > > > CompletableFuture<Void>> action) {
> > > > >> > > > return Transactions
> > > > >> > > > .beginTransaction()
> > > > >> > > > .thenCompose(tx -> {
> > > > >> > > > CompletableFuture<Object> result =
> > action.apply(tx)
> > > > >> > > > .handle((v, ex) -> null);
> > > > >> > > > return result.thenCompose(v -> tx.closeAsync());
> > > > >> > > > });
> > > > >> > > > }
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Async api is not very readable, but this method can help
> user
> > > > write
> > > > >> > code,
> > > > >> > > > this is rewritten first example:
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Transactions.inTxAsync(tx -> {
> > > > >> > > > CacheApi txCache = cache.withTx(tx);
> > > > >> > > > return txCache.getAsync("key")
> > > > >> > > > .thenCompose(val -> {
> > > > >> > > > if (val == "test") {
> > > > >> > > > return txCache.putAsync("key", "test1");
> > > > >> > > > }
> > > > >> > > > else
> > > > >> > > > return
> > CompletableFuture.completedFuture(null);
> > > > >> > > > })
> > > > >> > > > .thenCompose(v -> tx.commitAsync());
> > > > >> > > > });
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > ср, 14 июл. 2021 г. в 10:03, Alexei Scherbakov <
> > > > >> > > > alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com
> > > > >> > > > >:
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Andrey,
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > I suggest you look at the PR [1], if you haven't.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > A transaction [2]
> > > > >> > > > > Transactions facade [3]
> > > > >> > > > > Examples [4]
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/214/files
> > > > >> > > > > [2]
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/blob/d2122ce8c15de020e121f53509bd5a097aac9cf2/modules/api/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/tx/Transaction.java
> > > > >> > > > > [3]
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/blob/d2122ce8c15de020e121f53509bd5a097aac9cf2/modules/api/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/tx/IgniteTransactions.java
> > > > >> > > > > [4]
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/blob/d2122ce8c15de020e121f53509bd5a097aac9cf2/modules/table/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/table/TxTest.java
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > вт, 13 июл. 2021 г. в 19:41, Andrey Gura <
> ag...@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Alexey,
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > could you please describe Transaction interface?
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Also it would be great to have a couple examples of
> using
> > > the
> > > > >> > > proposed
> > > > >> > > > > API.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 4:43 PM Alexei Scherbakov
> > > > >> > > > > > <alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > I've prepared a PR implementing my vision of public
> > > > >> transactions
> > > > >> > > API.
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > API is very simple and similar to Ignite 2, but has
> some
> > > > >> > > differences.
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > More details can be found here [1]
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > Share your thoughts.
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15086
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > > Alexei Scherbakov
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> > > > > Alexei Scherbakov
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > --
> > > > >> > > > Sincerely yours, Ivan Daschinskiy
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > --
> > > > >> > > Best regards,
> > > > >> > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > --
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Best regards,
> > > > >> > Alexei Scherbakov
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Sincerely yours, Ivan Daschinskiy
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Alexei Scherbakov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Alexei Scherbakov
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Best regards,
Alexei Scherbakov
